dittybopper:CPennypacker: dittybopper: chuckufarlie: we can write a very precise law to eliminate automatic rifles.

What, like the NFA, combined with the 1986 Hughes Amendment to the FOPA, which means that no automatic rifles manufactured since 1986 may be privately owned?

Or do you mean SEMI-automatic rifles, like this:

[www.chuckhawks.com image 550x149] ?

Semi-Automatic is a subset of automatic

No, it isn't. They have two distinct and precise meanings when applied to rifles, and in law, they have two distinct meanings to all firearms.

The only argument you could make is that a semi-automatic pistol is often called "automatic", but that distinction that doesn't apply to rifles. The other is the gun I posted a picture of, the "Browning Automatic Rifle", which is a marketing term, not a firearm definition.

CPennypacker:orclover: chuckufarlie: Not at all. Those rifles serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people. Sane, rational people understand this. The idea that we should allow people to own weapons capable of killing large groups of people in a hurry is just crazy.

[abcnewsradioonline.com image 630x354][www.jewishjournal.com image 300x200]I refer to it as Planet Earth, 3rd mudball from the sun.

On a sidenote for those of you crying for a 2nd amendment revisiting, careful what you wish for. That could easily turn around to bite you in the ass harder than you can possibly imagine. A "well regulated militia" should be all the warning you need. But it wont be :(

As we all know, the primary purpose of the automobile is to flatten pedestrians.

"Flattening pedestrians" is as much the "primary purpose" of an automobile as "killing people" is the "primary purpose" of semi-automatic civilian rifles.

NEDM:Trying to limit a maniacs weaponry in the hopes that he can "only" kill a few of his victims instead of a larger number is folly instead of trying to keep the maniac from going on the rampage in the first place.

Good is not the enemy of perfect, especially when good results in 20 children not being slaughtered.

qorkfiend:vygramul: That wasn't his point. He was merely rejecting the assertion that they're only good for killing. Demonstrably, they're good for something else.

Saying they're "fun to use" contains no moral argument and does nothing to reject the assertion that a gun is a weapon designed to kill.

Every gun was designed to kill. The original statement implied that assault weapons were somehow morally different in its ability to kill by excluding any other possible use, suggesting that other weapons are morally superior. That's not a great argument.

Dimensio:LandOfChocolate: Dimensio: LandOfChocolate: Dimensio: when in fact no data shows that they are a common source of firearms for criminals.

Actually, it appears that Virginia gun shows are one of the largest sources of illegally obtained weapons that are used in crimes.

The article that you have referenced relies upon speculation, rather than demonstration.

OK, here you go.

More

From the Wikipedia page:

Between 2002 and 2005, more than 400 guns legally purchased at gun shows from licensed dealers in the city of Richmond, Virginia, were later recovered in connection with criminal activity.

That data indicates a problem with "straw purchasing", not with "gun shows". The "400 guns legally purchased at gun shows from licensed dealers" would have been sold with a background check of the purchaser. The purchaser then illegally resold the firearm to a criminal.

I'm running in to the limit of my knowledge here but it seems that they're linked. Everything I've read seems to indicate that the majority of straw purchases happen at gun shows. Is that accurate? If so, why is that?

Dimensio:CPennypacker: orclover: chuckufarlie: Not at all. Those rifles serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people. Sane, rational people understand this. The idea that we should allow people to own weapons capable of killing large groups of people in a hurry is just crazy.

[abcnewsradioonline.com image 630x354][www.jewishjournal.com image 300x200]I refer to it as Planet Earth, 3rd mudball from the sun.

On a sidenote for those of you crying for a 2nd amendment revisiting, careful what you wish for. That could easily turn around to bite you in the ass harder than you can possibly imagine. A "well regulated militia" should be all the warning you need. But it wont be :(

As we all know, the primary purpose of the automobile is to flatten pedestrians.

"Flattening pedestrians" is as much the "primary purpose" of an automobile as "killing people" is the "primary purpose" of semi-automatic civilian rifles.

The purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile to damage a target. I'm sorry if that concept is confusing for you. You may not be aiming it at a person but its primary function is still destructive.

False. The two terms are completely different. Automatic weapons means you pull the trigger and bullets fly out until you release the trigger or run out of ammo; semi-automatic weapons mean you have to pull the trigger once for each shot. Most pistols (all non-revolvers) are semi-automatic.

Geotpf:This school shooting involved stolen weapons too; the shooter stole them from his mother and then shot her with them.

I'm aware of that, but it's unlikely the proposed legislation would have changed the outcome of Newtown, since the adult child killed his mother and could have taken the key to a hypothetical gun lock or gun safe off of her. The two kids who stole their grandfather's arsenal could have been stopped with more responsible storage.

chuckufarlie:vygramul: chuckufarlie: what a wonderful idea! I am sure that nobody is going to go kill a lot of people if they know that they will face a stiff financial penalty. We should ask the latest shooter what he thinks about this and see...

Oh wait, he killed himself. So much for imposing a fine.

People who care so little for human life that they shoot children down in bunches are not going to be stopped by a fine.

I think the intent there is for the original gun owner to insure their arms are not accessible by others. A lot of school shootings were with stolen arms, like those two kids who stole their grandfather the park-ranger's rifles to shoot up their middle school.

The kid in Connecticut killed his mother. She owned the guns. What sort of a fine are you going to impose on her?

Bottom line - a fine or other punishment will do very little to stop people from using automatic rifles to kill lots of people. Do you think the families of the dead would be happy with that? How much do you fine a person for allowing somebody to use his rifle to kill a lot of people?

False. The two terms are completely different. Automatic weapons means you pull the trigger and bullets fly out until you release the trigger or run out of ammo; semi-automatic weapons mean you have to pull the trigger once for each shot. Most pistols (all non-revolvers) are semi-automatic.

LandOfChocolate:Dimensio: LandOfChocolate: Dimensio: LandOfChocolate: Dimensio: when in fact no data shows that they are a common source of firearms for criminals.

Actually, it appears that Virginia gun shows are one of the largest sources of illegally obtained weapons that are used in crimes.

The article that you have referenced relies upon speculation, rather than demonstration.

OK, here you go.

More

From the Wikipedia page:

Between 2002 and 2005, more than 400 guns legally purchased at gun shows from licensed dealers in the city of Richmond, Virginia, were later recovered in connection with criminal activity.

That data indicates a problem with "straw purchasing", not with "gun shows". The "400 guns legally purchased at gun shows from licensed dealers" would have been sold with a background check of the purchaser. The purchaser then illegally resold the firearm to a criminal.

I'm running in to the limit of my knowledge here but it seems that they're linked. Everything I've read seems to indicate that the majority of straw purchases happen at gun shows. Is that accurate? If so, why is that?

I am unable to locate data on where a majority of "straw purchases" occur.

CPennypacker:The purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile to damage a target.

The purpose of a nailgun is to fire a projectile to damage a target. The purpose of a pickaxe is to shatter whatever you swing it at. The purpose of a meat cleaver is specifically to rend flesh and bone. Their primary purposes are destructive. This argument is stupid.

sprawl15:CPennypacker: The purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile to damage a target.

The purpose of a nailgun is to fire a projectile to damage a target. The purpose of a pickaxe is to shatter whatever you swing it at. The purpose of a meat cleaver is specifically to rend flesh and bone. Their primary purposes are destructive. This argument is stupid.

Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. Its fine if you want to keep your toys but please join us in an adult conversation.

LandOfChocolate:bulldg4life: Well, the person states that the RCMP can inspect the home to make sure the weapons are stored correctly.

I'm assuming this woman did not store her weapons properly.

So you're now going to be relying on a spot check by the government (who apparently has nothing better to do than visit the homes of people living in >$1 million estates in suburban Connecticut) as a solution?

I haven't read anything about whether the weapons were stored properly or improperly but I have read that she took both of her sons to the range with her and taught them how to shoot. Its not a stretch to imagine that the sons knew how to access the guns, even if they were locked up.

Besides, the penalty here would be to fine or jail the mother. Which is difficult, considering her son shot her.

chuckufarlie:The kid in Connecticut killed his mother. She owned the guns. What sort of a fine are you going to impose on her?

Bottom line - a fine or other punishment will do very little to stop people from using automatic rifles to kill lots of people. Do you think the families of the dead would be happy with that? How much do you fine a person for allowing somebody to use his rifle to kill a lot of people?

You need to calm the fark down already. Are you a false-flag TRYING to make gun control advocates look like raving ignorant lunatics?

This is a legitimate problem. For instance, the Assault Weapons Ban was a mess of a law, obviously written by people who don't understand guns (and watered down to the point of meaninglessness to be able to be passed).

Dimensio:Typically, the claim of a "gun show loophole" is a reference to the fact that federal law does not (and, Constitutionally, cannot) regulate the transfer of firearms between two non-seller citizens within a single state.

Where do you get this nutty idea that federal law cannot regulate a piece of commerce that occurs entirely within one state, between residents of that state?

The interstate commerce clause covers anything that might affect interstate commerce. That means directly or indirectly. Go look up Wickard v Filburn. Not only was that within one state, there wasn't even any selling going on.

Dimensio:chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: We need to ban all rifles that use clips/magazines and make owning them illegal. We need to get all of them removed from society.

Your proposal remains unreasonable and irrational.

Not at all. Those rifles serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people.

Your claim is a demonstrable lie. When your position requires lying for support, it is not credible.

Somebody said yesterday that he uses an automatic rifle to shoot feral hogs. That is the only reason beyond killing people that these guns serve.

Just saying that my claim is a lie without providing some proof is extremely childish. You are not credible.

Hunting and recreational target shootings are demonstrable uses, or "purposes", of semi-automatic rifles. They are, in fact, far more common "purposes" for such firearms than murder is. As such, your claim that "killing lots of people" is the only "purpose" of such rifles is a lie. Your argument is predicated upon a lie and, as such, it lacks credibility.

No hunter needs an automatic rifle for hunting. If you miss with the first shot, the target animal is going to be leaving the area too fast to allow you to hit it with a second shot. I have rarely used more than two rounds in one day of deer hunting. So rare, that it might be never.

There is only one prey animal that is not fast enough to get away if that first shot misses. That would be humans.

You may want to take an automatic rifle hunting, but you do not NEED it.

Target shooting? You mean practicing so you can better shoot people when the time comes.

Sorry, skooter, but you are wrong. They serve no practical purpose beyond killing people.

Not really because you seem to be implying the difference is meaningless, so gun control is pointless. If that is not the case, then by all means explain.

But, that's what people have stated in multiple threads over the past few days. Violence can happen with other weapons, so gun control is a worthless endeavor.

It is a shiatty trade. But, it is a trade that every single person in Newtown Connecticut would make

I am by no means saying it's a worthless endeavor. I'm saying that it should be a secondary priority to increasing mental health care on a massive scale. However, making it harder to get guns is also something that should be implemented. Making it as hard to get a gun as it is to get a car (as an example) is definitely something that should be on the table.

False. The two terms are completely different. Automatic weapons means you pull the trigger and bullets fly out until you release the trigger or run out of ammo; semi-automatic weapons mean you have to pull the trigger once for each shot. Most pistols (all non-revolvers) are semi-automatic.

Again, he's using the term 'automatic' to refer to the action. That's why pistols are often referred to as 'automatics', its to distinguish them from revolvers which are not automatic action. The majority of rifles are automatic action, so the colloquial terminology is to reference non-automatic action (bolt action rifles, etc).

Semi-automatic means that the automatic action is...semi. You pull the trigger, it does all the stuff for you to shoot the bullet, but it only does it once. That's why a full auto weapon is 'full auto'. It's not distinguishing from burst fire, it's simply saying that the automatic action continues as long as the trigger is held down.

Bendal:Dimensio: Bendal: Want my definition? If the military uses the weapon, and the company sells a "civilianized" version of it, and it has semi-auto capability, then it's an assault weapon and civilians have no need for them.

Your standard is arbitrary and unreasonable. Prohibiting firearms based solely upon cosmetic appearance serves no purpose.

You keep saying that when people make suggestions on reducing the number of these people-killing weapons. My standard has measurable guidelines (weapon used by the military, but sold with 'changes' to civilians, has semi-auto capability) that can be used to differentiate what can and cannot be sold.

So all of the other semi-auto rifles not used by the military with the same rate of fire and magazine capacity would be ok?

Dinki:wingnut396: Dinki: Anyone that thinks a bunch of untrained unorganized civilians with hunting rifles is going to last 1 week against that force is a delusional fool.

Remember that week we went spent at war in Afghanistan?

Remember how the US thought that Afghanistan was an existential threat to the US and sent 5 million troops in?

So the reason we have been there for a decade is because we have not sent in enough troops and equipment? Or is it because they have some IEDs and a few RPGs mixed in with their antiquated weapons that they are using against the worlds most sophisticated armed forces?

The point is that yes, any insurrection that would theoretically happen in the US would be vastly outgunned. But you also assume that the military would fight against its own citizens, that none of the military would 'defect' and that the side with smaller arms would not use guerrilla/terrorists/asymmetrical tactics. The Iraqis didn't last long in a 'stand up' war against the US. The insurgency however.

Small arms can make more a difference that you think. It all depends on the environment of the conflict.

LandOfChocolate:Dimensio: LandOfChocolate: Dimensio: LandOfChocolate: Dimensio: when in fact no data shows that they are a common source of firearms for criminals.

Actually, it appears that Virginia gun shows are one of the largest sources of illegally obtained weapons that are used in crimes.

The article that you have referenced relies upon speculation, rather than demonstration.

OK, here you go.

More

From the Wikipedia page:

Between 2002 and 2005, more than 400 guns legally purchased at gun shows from licensed dealers in the city of Richmond, Virginia, were later recovered in connection with criminal activity.

That data indicates a problem with "straw purchasing", not with "gun shows". The "400 guns legally purchased at gun shows from licensed dealers" would have been sold with a background check of the purchaser. The purchaser then illegally resold the firearm to a criminal.

I'm running in to the limit of my knowledge here but it seems that they're linked. Everything I've read seems to indicate that the majority of straw purchases happen at gun shows. Is that accurate? If so, why is that?

I am unable to locate data on where a majority of "straw purchases" occur.

chuckufarlie:Dimensio: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: Dimensio: chuckufarlie: We need to ban all rifles that use clips/magazines and make owning them illegal. We need to get all of them removed from society.

Your proposal remains unreasonable and irrational.

Not at all. Those rifles serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people.

Your claim is a demonstrable lie. When your position requires lying for support, it is not credible.

Somebody said yesterday that he uses an automatic rifle to shoot feral hogs. That is the only reason beyond killing people that these guns serve.

Just saying that my claim is a lie without providing some proof is extremely childish. You are not credible.

Hunting and recreational target shootings are demonstrable uses, or "purposes", of semi-automatic rifles. They are, in fact, far more common "purposes" for such firearms than murder is. As such, your claim that "killing lots of people" is the only "purpose" of such rifles is a lie. Your argument is predicated upon a lie and, as such, it lacks credibility.

No hunter needs an automatic rifle for hunting. If you miss with the first shot, the target animal is going to be leaving the area too fast to allow you to hit it with a second shot. I have rarely used more than two rounds in one day of deer hunting. So rare, that it might be never.

There is only one prey animal that is not fast enough to get away if that first shot misses. That would be humans.

You may want to take an automatic rifle hunting, but you do not NEED it.

Target shooting? You mean practicing so you can better shoot people when the time comes.

Sorry, skooter, but you are wrong. They serve no practical purpose beyond killing people.

"Need" is not relevant. That the rifles are used for purposes other than killing people is sufficient to demonstrate your claim that they serve only to kill people to be a lie.

oldernell:And in a few weeks everything will be back to the way it was. Nothing constructive will happen. There are millions of assault weapons and high capacity magazines out there and even if a ban passes, there will be sufficient time for manufacturers to get rid of the inventory, so fear not, they won't go away and will be available for mass murderers for the next 100 years.

Fail in Human Form:chuckufarlie: NEDM: bulldg4life:If Adam Lanza had violently attacked 30 people with a knife, do you think he would've killed 26 people?

If they were little kids trapped where they couldn't get away from him? Yes, he easily could. The man in China attacked students at the schoolyard gate, and I have no doubts he could have racked up a large bodycount if he had managed to trap a group of children in a room with him.

The guy in China WOUNDED 2o people, he did not kill them. The guy in Connecticut did not trap the students in a room. So, besides that, you got it right.

It is much easier to get away from an attacker with a knife than it is to get away from an attacker with a gun.

If you get an AW ban and subsequently someone walks into a school and guns down students/teachers with a handful of revolvers and a pump shotgun will you ask for additional gun control?

So because you can come up with another method of killing people, we shouldn't try to do anything at all? I'm sure the families in Newtown would agree with your reasoning.

bulldg4life:LandOfChocolate: Again, how would that have helped here? The mother owned the weapons and would have passed all of those checks (including the training, she apparently spent a lot of time at the range). Should those checks extend to everyone who could potentially have access to the household where the weapons are kept?

Well, the person states that the RCMP can inspect the home to make sure the weapons are stored correctly.

I'm assuming this woman did not store her weapons properly.

Yep. And while it hasn't happened to me, it does happen. It's like the drug testing at work; they can test me anytime they want, but the only time they will is if I drive a forklift over someone's foot. If the RCMP has any reason to suspect that I might be a danger (complaint from neighbours, responding to a domestic dispute, that sort of thing), they most certainly will come down on me like a ton of bricks. My shiat had better be in the regulated pile or I could lose my licensing and firearms, without compensation. If there was any kind of history of violent disputes at that address, the RCMP would have insured that all firearms were properly licensed and stored, and they would have reenforced that only the licensed owner have access to the keys.

qorkfiend:orclover: chuckufarlie: Not at all. Those rifles serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people. Sane, rational people understand this. The idea that we should allow people to own weapons capable of killing large groups of people in a hurry is just crazy.

[abcnewsradioonline.com image 630x354][www.jewishjournal.com image 300x200]I refer to it as Planet Earth, 3rd mudball from the sun.

On a sidenote for those of you crying for a 2nd amendment revisiting, careful what you wish for. That could easily turn around to bite you in the ass harder than you can possibly imagine. A "well regulated militia" should be all the warning you need. But it wont be :(

How many people died in that vehicular "rampage", and how often do similar rampages occur?

10 in that screenshot died. Daily. Crazy comes in many many forms. Despite what some are saying in these threads, that kid killing dumbass was not sane. He wasnt sane last week, he wasnt sane last year probably. Sanity, you know, having a firm grasp on reality, know what you are doing at that moment is right or wrong and having the mental fibre to take a breath and say "woah, maybe slamming on the gas pedal in front of the farmers market doesnt make alot of sense". Its not just a description of dementia or bi-polar, its the whole concept of not completely farking over yer fellow human beings in a bloodbath. You might or might not be able to ban enough guns to make a diference, doubtfull. Hell even if you get lucky and you can pat yerself on the back next massacre when some nutjob only kills 6 kids instead of 20. Thats what were shooting for? How about you go ahead with that, but lets also make some larger changes in how we identify and treat our mentally ill, not just young bi-polar psychitics but ALL mentally ill, like the old grandpa who shouldnt be allowed anywhere near a farking drivers seat. Lets treat mental illness with more gusto than we have treated anything else in history. fark saving just 14 kids from a massacre at the hands of some farked up mental 20 year old with possible severe mommy issues, why not shoot for saving all of them? Even the farking nutjobs could be saved from themselves.Or is that too much work?

Bendal:Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: NEDM: bulldg4life:If Adam Lanza had violently attacked 30 people with a knife, do you think he would've killed 26 people?

If they were little kids trapped where they couldn't get away from him? Yes, he easily could. The man in China attacked students at the schoolyard gate, and I have no doubts he could have racked up a large bodycount if he had managed to trap a group of children in a room with him.

The guy in China WOUNDED 2o people, he did not kill them. The guy in Connecticut did not trap the students in a room. So, besides that, you got it right.

It is much easier to get away from an attacker with a knife than it is to get away from an attacker with a gun.

If you get an AW ban and subsequently someone walks into a school and guns down students/teachers with a handful of revolvers and a pump shotgun will you ask for additional gun control?

So because you can come up with another method of killing people, we shouldn't try to do anything at all? I'm sure the families in Newtown would agree with your reasoning.

If this tragedy is a reason to restrict my rights then why wouldn't they be further restricted after the next shooting or do you think passing an AW ban means no more shootings?

Dusk-You-n-Me:Good is not the enemy of perfect, especially when good results in 20 children not being slaughtered.

Only in this most recent attack, however. Per the list dittybopper posted earlier, these Chinese school stabbings (that we know about, China is quite good at censorship) aren't always totally non-fatal.

CPennypacker:sprawl15: CPennypacker: Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. Its fine if you want to keep your toys but please join us in an adult conversation.

I don't own - nor do I want to own - a gun. But congratulations on the hilarious, hilarious irony of this post.

So you're just being intellectually dishonest for fun?

Let me get this straight - you're asserting that the only use of a firearm is to destroy things, thus it should be banned, and my examples of other objects that are sold with a primary purpose of destruction is somehow dishonest?

Your arguments are shiatty. Jumping into BUT YOU JUST WANT TO KEEP YOUR TOYS is intellectually dishonest, and doubling down on it is kind of the opposite of "an adult conversation". Unless you believe an adult conversation is just replying "I concur".

vygramul:chuckufarlie: The kid in Connecticut killed his mother. She owned the guns. What sort of a fine are you going to impose on her?

Bottom line - a fine or other punishment will do very little to stop people from using automatic rifles to kill lots of people. Do you think the families of the dead would be happy with that? How much do you fine a person for allowing somebody to use his rifle to kill a lot of people?

You need to calm the fark down already. Are you a false-flag TRYING to make gun control advocates look like raving ignorant lunatics?

No, I am trying to make people who believe that imposing a fine on people is going to be a deterrent look like raving ignorant lunatics. A stupid "solution" is worse than no solution at all.

Think about it, Chumley, current law makes it illegal to kill people. You end up going to jail or you might get the death sentence for killing a person. Do you think that imposing a fine is going to be a bigger deterrent? People who foolishly allow others access to their weapons are also liable for a prison sentence.

False. The two terms are completely different. Automatic weapons means you pull the trigger and bullets fly out until you release the trigger or run out of ammo; semi-automatic weapons mean you have to pull the trigger once for each shot. Most pistols (all non-revolvers) are semi-automatic.

Dimensio:BMulligan: Bullshiat. Since 1986, federal law has permitted licensed firearms dealers to make sales without background checks so long as the transaction occurs away from the dealer's principle place of business. This is under federal law, mind you - several states have more restrictive statutes (the vitality of which may be subject to debate pursuant to the Supreme Court's ridiculous decision in McDonald). That's part of the reason, along with private sales, why 40% of the legally purchased firearms in this country were sold with no background check.

The article that you have referenced cites a Congressional Research Service report, yet I can find no information corroborating the claim of the article within the report.

Upon further research, it appears that you are correct on this point and the NPR piece I cited was wrong.

NEDM:Only in this most recent attack, however. Per the list dittybopper posted earlier, these Chinese school stabbings (that we know about, China is quite good at censorship) aren't always totally non-fatal.

So we shouldn't even bother trying to reduce gun violence! America is uniquely powerless in this situation!

Jackpot777:Geotpf: CPennypacker: Semi-Automatic is a subset of automatic

False. The two terms are completely different. Automatic weapons means you pull the trigger and bullets fly out until you release the trigger or run out of ammo; semi-automatic weapons mean you have to pull the trigger once for each shot. Most pistols (all non-revolvers) are semi-automatic.

1) Never provide citations to back up your claims. Dimensio has probably made 150+ posts on the topic of gun laws since Friday. He has never provided a citation to back up his claims.2) Misrepresent and cherry-pick statistics. Dimensio occasionally provides "statistics" to back up his claims. But, as noted above, never provides cites for them. If you go searching for the data you find that he has picked a state/country or year that is an outlier and presented that as the only data point.3) Dismiss any proposed solution as not solving "enough" of the problem. Proposed solutions are dismissed out of hand by DImensio by stating they won't go far enough in addressing the problem. Because, obviously, solutions that solve only part of the problem aren't worth it. Strangely, Dimensio has never provided a value for how "efficient" a solution must be for him to accept it.4) Callously disregard any statistic about lives lost due to guns. On the weekend someone presented, with citation, the number of gun-related deaths in America over the years. DImensio just dismissed the stat as if it was meaningless.

I never post on Fark, I created this account to vote in Photoshop threads. But I decided to post this because I'm amazed that people are still responding to . It's obvious that he isn't interested in honest debate. He just wants to fill threads with cherry-picked statistics and bare assertions.

In light of all this, why are you still suggesting that we shouldn't do anything to make these rampages (which I concede are still going to happen) less lethal?

Because I feel that we should be focusing on trying to stop them in the first place. That a school attack period is not acceptable, regardless of the weapon. Trying to limit a maniacs weaponry in the hopes that he can "only" kill a few of his victims instead of a larger number is folly instead of trying to keep the maniac from going on the rampage in the first place. A man with a knife only killing 3 or 4 people out of 20 that he stabs instead of shooting them all is only better in the grand scheme of things. It doesn't make the victims he did kill any less dead.

Again, I apologize for sounding like an utter asshole earlier.

I agree with you; we should be trying to stop these rampages in the first place. No argument. But I think we both agree that you're never going to stop every maniac. So we're back to the question of whether we want our maniacs to have guns or knives.

vygramul:Geotpf: This school shooting involved stolen weapons too; the shooter stole them from his mother and then shot her with them.

I'm aware of that, but it's unlikely the proposed legislation would have changed the outcome of Newtown, since the adult child killed his mother and could have taken the key to a hypothetical gun lock or gun safe off of her. The two kids who stole their grandfather's arsenal could have been stopped with more responsible storage.

Actually, from the reports of where they found his mother, and the condition she was in, it appears that he got the guns prior to killing her. She was found in her bed with four rounds in her head, so either he knew where she kept the key/combination or they weren't locked up in the first place.

Nobody (sane) really thinks that the US citizens could go toe to toe with the US Armed Forces and win. The point is making the Armed Forces fight with the general population. That is pretty much a guarantee for civil war and mass defections.

Having unarmed citizens makes it easier to use the Armed Forces to clamp down on domestic dissent... especially when it is being done "for their own good". Making soldiers shoot their own people is a bit harder.